Court Resolves Carriers’ Dispute Over Which Must Defend

    The court agreed with Travelers that Lloyd's had a duty to defend the underlying personal injury case. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118445 (S.D. N. Y. June 23, 2025).

    Jerome Avenue owned a multi-tenant property in the Bronx, New York. Jerome Avenue leased one of the units to Pawnit Jerome Corp. (Pawnit). Both Jerome Avenue and Pawnit were sued by Randolph Calosso, who alleged that he tripped and fell on the public sidewalk in front of the leased premises, sustaining serious injuries. 

    Travelers had issued a CGL policy to Jerome Avenue and provided a defense in the underlying case. The Travelers' policy included an "other insurance" provision, stating that coverage was "excess over any of the other insurance, whether primary excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the insured when the insured is an additional insured . . ."

    Pawnit held a CGL policy issued by Lloyd's. The policy included as additional insureds "[a] manager or lessor of premises but only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that specific part of the premises leased [to the insured]."

    Travelers tendered the defense and indemnity of Jerome Avenue to Lloyd's. The tender was rejected. Travelers filed suit seeking a declaration that Lloyd's had a duty to defend and indemnify Jerome Avenue. Cross-motions for sumary judgment were filed. 

    The Lloyd's policy considered a manager or lessor of the premises to be an additional insured, but only with respect to liability arising out of ownership, maintenance or use of that specific part of the premises leased." Therefore, the issue was whether additional insured coverage was triggered by an accident that took place on the sidewalk outside the leased premises. New York courts had held that additional insured coverage was triggered for accidents that occurred in areas that served as points of ingress or egress from the leased premises. 

    Therefore, Jerome Avenue qualified as an additional insured under the Lloyd's policy, It was undisputed that the alleged accident took place on the sidewalk outside the leased premises. Therefore, Lloyd's had a duty to defend Jerome Avenue.

    The court further determined that it was premature to determine whether Lloyd's had a duty to indemnify.